Reformed Catholocism
On my personal blog, I recently lamented the current state of the catholic (notice the lowercase "c") Church with all its division and infighting. In case you were wondering, I wrote the word "infighting" on purpose, even though I realize that most fundamentalists refuse to believe that members of, say, the eastern orthodox church are "in" with them. When I hear this kind of talk, it brings up the image in my mind of a family sitting around the table, with the little brother who thinks he's always right telling his older brother to get up from the dinner table and go eat outside, and that he really isn't even a part of the family; he doesn't belong there. My response is 1) this isn't helpful, and 2) it isn't necessarily true.
With all of these thoughts constantly on my mind as of late, I wanted to plug a blog that I think is working hard to reunite the Church. They don't think they have all of the answers, but they know what to pray for: unity. Anyway, if you would like to see what others are doing to try and reunite the Church in the Truth, check out Reformed Catholicism, and then come back here and let me know what you think of it.
posted by DrewDog | 10:16 PM
4 Comments:
i read some of the things on this blog and i have to say that i agree with preserving the unity that we have in Christ, but some of the things this guy is saying are kinda wacky. he blogs: "we really must admit that the Scriptures are secondary to the covenant community..." i might be wrong but to me this sounds like he's putting the inspired word of God, our primary means of communication from Him, on the back burner and placing a greater emphasis on the movement of the people. he also states, "the Church grew through images, icons, calendars, and celebrations not the least of which is the picture of redemption present in the Eucharist." it seems like the things he places in greater importance to the scriptures have worked to hinder and divide the unity rather than preserve it.
I agree with Paul. How can we preserve the unity if we don't place the Word of God (the one unifying bond the Church possesses) above all else? I'm uncomfortable with this particular statement he makes as well: "Not all communities at all times within the history of the Church either had access to all the Scriptures at once or had overly developed views of the Scriptures. Even today, some people will never read the Bible all the way through or study it exhaustively–and we shouldn’t necessarily expect them to (and especially not out of a false pietism)." Why shouldn't we expect people to? Isn't this the only way we can better know and understand God and all of His attributes, and in turn, with that knowledge, worship Him for who He truly is?
Eric (Not my real name, but this seems like a men's place.)
Paul & Eric(a), I'm cetainly not saying that you should agree with everything on that blog, rather I appreciate its goal, and many of its contributions. Just this morning they put up a prayer for the unity of the Church.
That being said, I do believe that Kevin is being misunderstood in your quotes. As I read these articles, I didn't get the impression that he was placing the Bible secondary to tradition or anything like that. I think his point was to say that there have been times in history where the Bible was not available, and the Holy Spirit still worked (i.e. through the picture of death and resurrection at the eucharist, biblical accounts from stained glass windows, etc.)
In sum, I believe his point was that the Bible is secondary to the Holy Spirit. And many reformed people forget this and slip into the worship of a strange quadity: Father, Son, Bible, and Holy Spirit.
Perhaps he is just plain wrong here, and you are reading him correctly; I'm open to that. I will ask him a few questions of clarification, and get back to you.
Thanks for your insights; they have caused me to think more deeply on this issue.
BTW, check it out again today. There's a great post on N.T. Wright!
I just finished posting a comment to Kevin, and I'll post his response when I get it. Here's my comment:
Kevin, you wrote:
“Even today, some people will never read the Bible all the way through or study it exhaustively–and we shouldn’t necessarily expect them to (and especially not out of a false pietism).”
I just wanted to ask a few questions of clarification: 1)Why shouldn’t we expect people to study the Bible exhaustively? 2) What are some specific circumstances in which it would be better not to expect people to study the Bible exhaustively? 3)Should I understand you to mean by “expect” a definition closer to “demand,” or “anticipate,” or is there and even closer synonym that would help me understand what you are saying?
I’m willing to be convinced that you are right, I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.
Cheers
Post a Comment
<< Home